« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results  (Read 1857 times)

Offline Mister Fork

  • AvA Staff Member
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7294
Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results
« on: April 03, 2003, 10:41:18 AM »
Test Environment
Altitude: 150 ft
Winds: 0
Fuel Burn Rate: 0.01
Fuel: 25%
Vo: 150Mph
Vf: 250Mph
WEP: On

Description
All aircraft were loaded with 25% fuel and with minimal MG loads if available. Aircraft were auto-levelled at 150 feet and speed reduced to 125mph, except the Me 262* and Me 163*.  100% throttle was applied and WEP engaged (if available).  At 150mph the timer was engaged to 250Mph. This was repeated five times for every aircraft. The average time was recorded to accelerate through 100 mph.

* Vo was 200 and Vf was 300 due to stall conditions.

Forumla
Acceleration
a = (Vf - Vo) / t  m/s^2
where
Vf - final velocity
Vo - initial velocity
t - time in seconds

Vf = 250mph = 111.8 m/s
Vo= 150mph = 67.1 m/s

a = (111.8m/s - 67.1m/s) / t  
a = 44.7m/s / time

% accuracy: +/- .2 s

Results (in order of acceration)
Aircraft | Seconds | Acceleration
Me 163   |   7.7   |   5.8
Tempest V    |    16.7    |    2.7
La-7    |    16.9    |    2.6
Spit XIV    |    16.9    |    2.6
Bf 109G-10    |    17.1    |    2.6
La-5FN    |    17.6    |    2.5
Me 262    |    19.5    |    2.3
Fw 190D-9    |    20.2    |    2.2
Bf 109G-2    |    20.5    |    2.2
F4U-4    |    20.8    |    2.1
Typhoon    |    21.5    |    2.1
Bf 109G-6    |    21.8    |    2.1
P-38L    |    22.0    |    2.0
Bf 109F-4    |    22.1    |    2.0
C205    |    22.2    |    2.0
Fw 190A-8    |    22.8    |    2.0
Fw 190A-5    |    23.0    |    1.9
P-51D    |    23.3    |    1.9
NIK2-J    |    23.4    |    1.9
Spit IX    |    23.6    |    1.9
F4U-1D    |    23.8    |    1.9
F4U-1C    |    24.0    |    1.9
Ta-152H    |    24.0    |    1.9
Yak-9U    |    24.0    |    1.9
P-47D-30    |    24.5    |    1.8
F6F-5    |    24.6    |    1.8
Bf 110G-2    |    24.9    |    1.8
C202    |    24.9    |    1.8
Fw 190F-8    |    25.1    |    1.8
Spit V    |    26.0    |    1.7
Mosq VI    |    26.1    |    1.7
Yak-9T    |    26.2    |    1.7
F4U-1    |    26.5    |    1.7
P-47D-11    |    26.9    |    1.7
Seafire IIC    |    27.0    |    1.7
P-47D-25    |    27.1    |    1.6
A6M5b    |    27.9    |    1.6
P-51B    |    28.0    |    1.6
Hurr IIC    |    29.1    |    1.5
FM2    |    29.9    |    1.5
Bf 110C-4b    |    30.0    |    1.5
Ki-61-I-KAIc    |    30.4    |    1.5
Bf 109E-4    |    33.2    |    1.3
Spit IA    |    33.5    |    1.3
Hurr IID    |    34.9    |    1.3
P-40E    |    36.0    |    1.2
Hurr Mk 1    |    37.0    |    1.2
A6M2    |    40.3    |    1.1
F4F-4    |    40.9    |    1.1
P-40B    |    101.8    |    0.4

Results are available in an Excel spreadsheet. If you like, email me at mr.fork@shaw.ca and I'll send you the results.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2003, 10:43:53 AM by Mister Fork »
Logged
"Games are meant to be fun and fair but fighting a war is neither." - HiTech

Offline Frost

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 281
Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2003, 11:04:49 AM »
Nice work.  I did the same type of thing for AWIII.  Maybe some of the experts will step in and point out any discrepencies.
Logged

Offline Shane

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7922
Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2003, 11:51:59 AM »
lol, this should shut up the "the fw190d9 can't accelerate very well" crowd and point out how easily they can and *do* run.


i know it'd be time consuming, but the same test at say 15,000 feet would be good.. or maybe 18,000.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2003, 11:56:03 AM by Shane »
Logged
Surrounded by suck and underwhelmed with mediocrity.
I'm always right, it just takes some poepl longer to come to that realization than others.
I'm not perfect, but I am closer to it than you are.
"...vox populi, vox dei..."  ~Alcuin ca. 798
Truth doesn't need exaggeration.

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2003, 11:57:09 AM »
WTFG!!

Excellent post!

The only suprise for me is the LA-5.

Is the power to weight ratio that great??
Logged

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2003, 01:01:49 PM »
Who says that shane? The 190s should accelerate well. The point never was the d9 but the 190a5 vrs the spit. You can see its only .6 sec faster.

Hell the a8 beats the a5.
Logged

Offline wetrat

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2003, 01:07:30 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by F4UDOA
WTFG!!

Excellent post!

The only suprise for me is the LA-5.

Is the power to weight ratio that great??

The LA-5 and LA-7 use the same engine... the LA-7 is just "cleaner" aerodynamically. So to answer your question.. yes.
Logged
Army of Muppets

Offline Elysian

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 637
Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2003, 01:14:33 PM »
WTG fork, you know I basically did the same tests for all AH aircraft except at 50% fuel and at 1k, 5k and 9k.  I timed 150-250 as well as 200-300 mph.  I'll try and post some of the results soon if I can.

Just from scanning it offhand my results were very similar, except for the A8 was just a hair faster than the f4u1d in my tests.  Also I don't think the 190f4 did as well, but I think that is due to the fact that I take max guns and most likely tested that way.  

One real interesting thing I can see right off is that fuel load makes a *much* bigger difference that I thought it would.  Using twice the fuel in my tests as you did in yours (also at 1k vs 150 ft.) the accel times I came up with were on the order of 8-15 seconds longer for the 150-250mph range.




Side note, Lazerus and I are trying to reform the "old" JG 2 somewhat -- you are more than welcome to join us Fork .
Logged

Offline HFMudd

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 609
Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results
« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2003, 03:28:51 PM »
Quote
P-40B | 101.8 | 0.4

Ow...
Logged

Offline Puke

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 759
      • http://members.cox.net/barking.pig/puke.htm
Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results
« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2003, 03:43:21 PM »
Big difference between P-51B and P-51D.
Logged

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results
« Reply #9 on: April 03, 2003, 04:04:41 PM »
The difference between the P-51's would be reversed at altitude.  Low altitude is the worst possible place for the version of the P-51B we have in AH to be.

J_A_B
Logged

Offline AdmRose

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 624
      • http://www.geocities.com/cmdrrose/index.html
Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results
« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2003, 04:58:02 PM »
P-40B | 101.8 | 0.4

I think my car accelerates faster. Nobody is gonna wanna fly these after reading this lol.
Logged

Offline Shane

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7922
Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results
« Reply #11 on: April 03, 2003, 06:50:05 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Batz
Who says that shane? The 190s should accelerate well. The point never was the d9 but the 190a5 vrs the spit. You can see its only .6 sec faster.

Hell the a8 beats the a5.


1/2 a sec can be enough. yet most of the errr whines about fw's revolve around the d9.

the g10 is almost the same as the la7... yet...

perk the g10!!!

:D
Logged
Surrounded by suck and underwhelmed with mediocrity.
I'm always right, it just takes some poepl longer to come to that realization than others.
I'm not perfect, but I am closer to it than you are.
"...vox populi, vox dei..."  ~Alcuin ca. 798
Truth doesn't need exaggeration.

Offline Hooligan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results
« Reply #12 on: April 03, 2003, 07:09:29 PM »
Nice work.  Thanks for the effort.  

It does seem odd to me that you chose to use minimum ammo loads and 25% fuel.  50% or 75% fuel would seem to be useful in making the results more relevant to typical MA conditions.

Hooligan
Logged

Offline MANDOBLE

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1849
      • http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s
Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results
« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2003, 12:46:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hooligan
50% or 75% fuel


Agree, I woud say with enough fuel to fly 75 miles (quadrant and half, climbing to 15k and with RTB included), that is, some planes with 25% (Ta152), some others with 100% (C205) and so on. In any case, good work.
Logged

Offline Suave

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2950
Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results
« Reply #14 on: April 04, 2003, 01:26:41 AM »
Two things that suprised me: I thought that the 202 would accelerate faster because of how light it is and how well it climbs, and the difference between the p51b and p51d .
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
« previous next »